Re: HLA v1.93 is now available

On 28 apr, 21:00, Betov <b...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
"r...@xxxxxxxxxx" <spamt...@xxxxxxxxxx> écrivaitnews:1177784352.561983..31750@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:

HLA, the High-Level Assembler, is a powerful macro
assembly language development system that runs under
Windows and Linux operating systems.

Do not miss saying that, if you had not stolen FASM Code,
HLA would just do nothing at all.

From a features point of view, HLA is one of the most
powerful assemblers ever written.

It is not an Assembler. FASM _was_ an Assembler, before you
pasted your HLL Pre-Parser glue around.

It's macro and
"compile-time language" facilities far exceed those found
in other assemblers.

Your HLL is rather pathetic.

HLA was specifically designed to make learning and writing
assembly language as easy as possible.

No. You have written your HLL Pre-Parser for deliberatly
perverting beginners, because, on one hand, you are unable
to write an Assembler, and on the other hand you have to
make a living from selling yourself as an Assembly expert.

Betov.

<http://rosasm.org>

On 26 apr, 19:23, Betov <b...@xxxxxxx> wrote:

<snip>

Said by the clown who was not even able to write an Assembler
and who had no choice but stealing one, written by somebody
else.

In some way, you are right, clown. I would strongly recommend
applying your recommendations to yourself: Maybe you could
impress somebody, as an "expert", at "comp.compilers", where
smoking bullshits will likely have more success there than here.

:)

Betov.

<http://rosasm.org>


OMG, if I didn't know any better I'd say you're really having a ball
flaming in this newsgroup instead of actually being serious about your
claims. Now before you go berserk and try to drag me in another
pointless flamewar, let me clearly state that I'm _not_ gonna oppose
your claims beforehand because you made them, but provide a lurker's
3rd person point of view. Here goes.

Using someone else's assembler in accordance to its license to build
one oneself doesn't exactly fit the definition of stealing, especially
not with prior permission from the author of said assembler. So strike
that one. As for not being able to write one; methinks Randy has you
already beat by at least 25 years ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisa_assembler
). That's two already. But we're not done yet; anyone who took the
time to read the HLA pages knows that version 1.x relies on an
external assembler as a back end. The 1.9x versions have Fasm built-in
for that purpose (and no; this doesn't make Fasm not an assembler
anymore). It's quite obvious that this is _the_ pet peeve of the "die-
hard low-level" asm-ers here. It always comes down to: "HLA v1.xx
needs another assembler therefore it's not a real assembler." Truth to
be told: I actually _agree_ with that. Not that it would matter much
though; Randy will happily keep on tweaking both the HLA (compile-
time) language and software until he deems HLA ready for production.
Remember that HLA v1.xx is designated as the prototype, so letting HLA
emit code for an external assembler is actually quite beneficial as it
allows for exhaustive testing and bugfixing both the HLA (compile-
time) language and the assembler. From what I've gathered, if he is
going to release HLA v2.xx (the one with its own internal object code
emitter) in Public Domain as well, like he did with HLA V1.xx until
Fasm got built in and he was forced to comply to the Fasm license, he
has to write the object code emitting part himself. Now I"m not 100%
sure about that, so Randy has to confirm that one. But if that turns
out to be the case it would basically mean that, when HLA v2.xx ships,
Hyde has succeeded in writing a full-blown x86 high-level assembler,
leaving the anti-HLA crowd without their most stressed argument.
Although I wouldn't be surprised if they're stupid enough to keep
repeating that beaten-to-death and, from that moment on, false story
then. I honestly don't think it's such a good idea to not retract a
claim that turns out false after a while, but that's up to you. Be
warned though that if you keep up that claim just for the sake of
opposition, and expose yourself as a liar, you do so knowingly and
willingly.

.

Quantcast